QuoteReplyTopic: The Top 100 Leaders in History Posted: 01-Mar-2008 at 15:37

The Top 100 Leaders in History

(See below for original post)

__________________________________

EDIT: (Through page 9). A numerical system for rating leaders has been adopted, and I am steadily going through all the nations of note in history (by alphabetical order) and evaluating their leaders. I have gone ahead and rated leaders from several of the more important nations to give a more full top 100 leaders list before actually finishing the alphabetical listing of nations. Thus, there are many nations with no leaders on the list at this point that will be on later.

This list is through France in the alphabetical order evaluations; any leaders from after France in the alphabet are not rated definitively yet. This is a BETA list.

I have worked on the Top 100 Generals listing for several years now, and think it is time to look at a new topic. Several times in that thread I have noted that a man was not a great general, but was a great leader. George Washington is a prime example. Or that a man was a great general but not a great leader--Hannibal, perhaps.

I should define "leader." By a leader, I am talking about the leader of a nation, or the leader of a people. The man (or woman--I'm not leaving out Joan...) does not have to be a political leader or even a military leader. However, this person must change the trajectory of the nation. This is less subjective than the Top 100 Generals, because the impact is more measurable, even for subjects in the far distant past about which we have little detail.

What do I mean by trajectory? A nation is on a specific path--or tribes, or whatever the entity is. After the person's life, they are on a different trajectory or path. What is the difference between those paths? Thus, a great general who creates an empire and then loses it is worthless. Thus Napoleon is not a very great leader.

I do wish to take into account somewhat of what occurred within the person's lifetime, but that should be relatively unimportant--say 25% of the ranking.

I have not yet assembled a full top 100 list, as I do not have enough resources at my disposal. I will, however, comment on what I do have understanding of.

I do not yet want people to simply give their top 10 or 100. I would like people to rank the top that they know of for individual nations/peoples. Eventually, these will all be combined into a cohesive whole.

One thing this more objective system allows for is for great leaders of distant history to be properly evaluated. For example, Sargon of Akkad will be on the list for sure. Hammurabi as well. As generals, they could not be considered.

Here are a few of my considerations/evaluations of one country to start out--I'll add more later as I think about them longer. I start with my own: the US.Top United States Leaders1. George Washington. Without him, the nation is totally different or non-existent. He changed the course of history. Probably a top 5 overall.2. Abraham Lincoln. Again, changed the course of history. Do I agree with his policies? No. But he changed the trajectory of the US, for the stronger. (Of course, I'm in the South, so I don't like him much...) Probably a top 25 overall.3. Thomas Jefferson. Molded the shape of the US, purchased Louisiana. Top 100 overall.4. Dwight D. Eisenhower. WWII and President. Top 100 overall.5. Douglas MacArthur. WWII and Korea. Top 100 overall?6. Franklin Roosevelt. WWII! Top 100 overall?7. Ronald Reagan. End of Cold War.Honestly, that's about all I could come up with. Only the top 2 I consider very strong candidates overall. We just don't have enough history!

I note this list dovetails in with the Top 100 Generals and the Top Political leaders Justinian is putting together. I'm not trying to steal the idea, but rather come up with a coherent combined approach.

Currently we are on page one. In won't be long when this thread will be up to 50 pages in no time. Anyway my vote goes to Shaka Zulu. Nah, just messing. For the US I'll go with George Washington though.

1. I would like to avoid religious leaders on this list, as it tends to stir feelings and they primarily did not impact a specific nation. Since the primary criteria is based on the trajectory of nations, that doesn't fit in so well.

2. One way to look at it would be--if the person had not existed, what would likely have happened with that nation/people? For example, had Hannibal not existed, how would the future have changed for Carthage? By that standard, he was not a great leader. However, I will also take into account what happened within the person's lifetime, and by that secondary metric he did quite well. He'll probably end up in the 60s or 70s (maybe even lower).

3. Please due try to be coherent with some backing for the guys you recommend. I do prefer if they are sorted by country. I don't have time to research everybody myself, so do some of the work yourself if you can....

1. I would like to avoid religious leaders on this list, as it tends to stir feelings and they primarily did not impact a specific nation. Since the primary criteria is based on the trajectory of nations, that doesn't fit in so well.

You can't avoid Muhammad with that argument, at the moment that opposite to most of the religious leaders as Jesus, Buda, Zoroaster... Muhammad was a real leader of his entire people, the arabs, in a political and military sense.

1. I would like to avoid religious leaders on this list, as it tends to stir feelings and they primarily did not impact a specific nation. Since the primary criteria is based on the trajectory of nations, that doesn't fit in so well.

You can't avoid Muhammad with that argument, at the moment that opposite to most of the religious leaders as Jesus, Buda, Zoroaster... Muhammad was a real leader of his entire people, the arabs, in a political and military sense.

Totaly agreed. Even if you are atheist you can't deny Muhammad existed. Other than being an prophet he was a military leader and the head of the Arabs. But you may call Jesus, Abraham, Adam, Moses all myths if you don't believe in God. And they had no impact on history other than bringing the word of God.

Spain, i will count only medieval christian kingdoms to present, not prerroman Iberia, no romans, no barbarians and Visigoths, no muslims.

1. Isabel the Catholic: she married with Ferdinand unifiying the core of the spanish territories, she ordered the conquest of Canary Islands finishing 2000 years of native culture borning a new society, she ordered the conquest of Grenada finishing 800 years of muslim presence in Iberia; she supported the discovery of América and the expansion there, she expulsed the jews wich were the finest artisans and traders of the country, she created the Inquisition wich is crucial for the future intellectual development of Spain, and following to Ferdinand supported the expansion in Europe and with the dinastic policy stablished the international alliances of Spain for two centuries. With the exception of these two matters where Ferdinand the Catholic was the primary leader, the others was initiatives of Isabel for the interest (or crucial damage) of the castillian crown.

2. Philip II: the greatest king of Spain, the man who took all the forces of the kingdom at the service of a trully global supremacy. The expansion in Asia and the consolidation of the american conquest, the fight stopping the ottomans, the effort destroying the protestants, the long fight in Northwestern Europe with spanish arms so high than never before or after, the struggle for the supremacy on the seas with England, the adquisition of the vast portuguese empire. At the end an empire where the sun never set, but a horrible weakening of the spanish inner forces.

3. Charles III: this king was the opposite to the greats leaders of the XVI century. A man worried about the inner growth of the country; with him the economy expanded, the fields where spanish companies was pushed out was take up again, some improvements in economy was introducted, the Navy grew to the third world position, the pressure over the people was light with a foreign policy tight to the spanish interest. After a first international failure, he took advantage with the independence of USA expanding the empire; the cultural achievements along his reign was great in scientific and literary fields. He was loved by the people because this and his improvement of some cities as Madrid. He was at all the perfect Enlightement King.

4. Charles I and V of Germany: What to say about him.

5. Ferdinand III: the greatest of the medieval kings with the licence of Alphoso X. Ferdinand was a leader who united the kingdoms of Leon and Castille building a power capable of conquer most of the ramaining muslim regions. Some of the greatest cities of the western world like Seville and Córdoba fell in his hands and the medieval spanish armies peaked.

Out of category, Felipe González for recent leaders: surelly he will not qualify for the first 100, but i think he is the best of recent years. Some problems when he was president: corruption and GAL (state terrorism), but with him the country find the needed stability for a democratic consolidation, he won four elections three by absolute majority. Was a political master and admired outside from Spain so many times he has been elected for some important international works in diplomatic and political fields.

Totaly agreed. Even if you are atheist you can't deny Muhammad existed. Other than being an prophet he was a military leader and the head of the Arabs. But you may call Jesus, Abraham, Adam, Moses all myths if you don't believe in God. And they had no impact on history other than bringing the word of God.

Yeah, that's a good point. I am not going to include Jesus, but I may put Moses, David, or Joshua on as they really were great leaders of a single people. I'm just trying to find a way so that this thread won't dissolve in controversy.

Leaders of what? Leaders with the greatest importance living after them?

As I have said several times, leaders of a single people/nation/tribe. The way to evaluate their leadership is to evaluate the direction the nation was headed before them and to compare that to the direction the nation was headed after them, in terms of real power.

I'm not doing leaders of "muslim world" but rather of a people. As such, Abraham doesn't really qualify as he merely was leading his own household (what, 318 trained men when he took on Chedorlaomer and company?) and that doesn't really count. Moses will be on the list, I'm sure. Jesus won't--I'm dealing with leaders of nations. Muhammed probably will as leader of Arabs. For all of those other guys, you will HAVE to give me sources, references, or write up descriptions/ biographies of them. I have never heard of most of them.

Nezahualcoytl (engineer, poet and king of Texcoco, the Athens of the Americas)

Pacal, the greatest mayan king.

Nezahualcoyotl is a good choice, but personally I would not select Pacal. The epithet 'Pacal the great' was given him by 20th century archaeologists, and was not used by the Mayas themselves, and also Palenque was never as powerful as Calakmul or Tikal. If you want to pick a Mayan leader Sky-Witness of Calakmul would be a better one, he defeated Tikal and made Calakmul the sole superpower of the Mayan world. Other Meso-American nominees could be the Toltec ruler and culture hero Ce Acatl Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl, the founder of Tula and possibily Chichén Itzá, or the Mixtec ruler 8-Deer Jaguar Claw of Tilantongo.

For modern Latin American History Simón Bolívar, the liberator of much of South America, and Benito Juárez, who introduced a liberal, secular and democratic system in Mexico and succesfully managed to repel the French should definately included. A more controversial selection would be Che Guevara. If you want to include him or not depends on your definition of 'great', but if you look just as importance he should definately be considered. It may also be interesting to include one of two populists of the '40 or '50, Vargas (Brazil), Perón (Argentina), Cárdenas (Mexico), Arias (Panama) or Ibáñez (Chile). Though most of their reforms (Cárdenas is an excpeption) did not last very long, they changed the political culture of the countries they ruled and for the first time got the majority of the population involved in politics (and apart from that most of them had very interesting personalities).

Edited by Mixcoatl - 02-Mar-2008 at 22:32

"Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts"
"Atheists deny the existence of Satan, while simultaneously doing his work."- Conservapedia

Leaders of what? Leaders with the greatest importance living after them?

As I have said several times, leaders of a single people/nation/tribe. The way to evaluate their leadership is to evaluate the direction the nation was headed before them and to compare that to the direction the nation was headed after them, in terms of real power.

In that case, Peter The Great, Catherine The Great, Darius The Great, and Philioppos II of Macedon all deserve a spot.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum